[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 39 KB, 446x695, freakonomics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1623860 No.1623860 [Reply] [Original]

Freakonomics for sure.

>> No.1623866

>A rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything
lie

>> No.1623892

Is this the one that puts up some evidence that Roe v. Wade was what dropped the national crime rate by 50% at the end of the 80s?

>> No.1623895

that book is only worth reading for the "abortions saved New York City" part.

>> No.1624195
File: 398 KB, 800x1207, Erik-S.-Reinert-How-Rich-Countries-Got-Rich-and-Why-Poor-Countries-Stay-Poor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1624195

Why in the world am I salivating to own and read this book?
Its on economics fer crissake!

Anyway, OP should check it out if he's still about.

>> No.1624217

I loved this book when I first read it. Definitely worth it. Also, abortions saved the country.

>> No.1624369

>>1623892

lol que?

>>1623866

Yeah it does. It mainly a book about determining the economic effects of socially unacceptable or controversial subjects. It's well written in an entertaining way that doesn't shove stats down your throat.

>> No.1624385

Everything I read about and by this guy sets off hundreds of flags in my head. I just can't take it seriously because of the psuedoscience and constant false conclusions.

I'm sure he thinks he's a genius though, he managed to fool all sorts of government officials into thinking he's legit.

>> No.1624395

>>1624369
>>1623892
Chapter 4 is fixated with a correlation found by economist showing that after abortion became legal in united states, there was a dramatic decrease in the crime rate.

Basically saying, less poor children coming into poverty means less poor kids going to crime.

That said, I remember reading after a had finished this book that a bunch of economist looked into there data and found a lot of holes in it. Basically saying that the Freakonomics guys fudged there data to fit there politics.

>> No.1624709

>>1624395
I read that too.
It was something along the lines of despite abortion being illegal, poor folks had more kids than ever. So the kinds of people he said were kept from existing, there was tons more of em.
otherwise an interesting read.

>> No.1624713

>>1624195

>why poor countries stay poor

Because the people there are black

>> No.1624718

I'm reading it now. Nearly finished, It's not that good. A couple of really good observations. But that doesn't make a really good book.
Interesting to see, however, that no matter how sound and well explained it is people in this thread still seem to be misunderstanding it. Worrying.

>> No.1624769

>>1624713
loled, name one caucasian country that's poor please, anyone?`

>> No.1624781

>>1624769
America? Aren't they something like ten trillion dollars in debt? But, avoiding that shitstorm, how about Romania? Wait, how about you define poor first, then we can play.

>> No.1624783

>>1624769
>>1624713
Same stormfag
>name one [C]aucasian country that's poor please.
Romania, Estonia, Greece Serbia. Yeah, but inB4lolthose aren't Caucasian. These countries are post industrialized aren't they?
>Black
Self fulfilling prophesy here. The end of imperialism, and neo-colonialism will end the crushing poverty.

>> No.1624785

>>1624769
Also, Caucasian is a race that covers arabs and indians and a few orientals aswell. Use Ethnicity.

>> No.1624786

>>1624769
Er... All the Balkan countries.

You pair of morons.

>> No.1624806

>>1624786
Moldova would have been the best example. They had their parliament building sacked in a protest and can't afford to repair it.

>> No.1624809 [DELETED] 

>>1624769
USA
bunch of poor niggas and mexicans

>> No.1624839

>>1624781

America is pretty much out of debt by now, you fucking moron.
The economic "crisis" was overblown for a few years, but it's fucking just about over. There is no longer a convenient excuse for lazy people not to have a job because of "the economy."

>> No.1624852

holy SHIT they are SPLICING fucking APPLES with fucking ORANGES. what the FUCK! how FREAKY!

>> No.1624990

I like the chapter where the indian dude got kidnapped by those drug dealers

>> No.1625005 [DELETED] 

>>1624839
>America is pretty much out of debt by now
lol, you serious nigga?

>> No.1625016

>>1624990
He actually wrote a book similar to freakonomics on that ordeal among other things.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gang-Leader-Day-Sociologist-Crosses/dp/0713999934

>> No.1625020

>An economist explains random shit mostly published articles decades ago to make irrelevant points about economics seem cool.

That's all fine and dandy, but read some REAL econ:

The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford
The Logic of Life by Tim Harford
The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek
The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman
Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan
Parliament of Whores by P. J. O'Rourke
Eat the Rich by P. J. O'Rourke
The Myth of the Rational Voter by Bryan Caplan

>> No.1625029

>>1624839
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

You're wrong, idiot!

>> No.1625035

>>1625020
talks down about freakonomics.
lists tim harford & nassim taleb, i havent even read all of those but im sure most of them are pop economics aswell from the titles.

>> No.1625036
File: 40 KB, 311x475, GunsGermsSteel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1625036

>>1624713

>> No.1625048

>>1625035

And incredibly biased towards classical economics.

>> No.1625052

>>1625035
First of all, if you don't know Friedman and Hayek, you probably shouldn't be talking with so much conviction about economics.

Secondly, Harford writes pop-econ that actually explains important principles of economics to lay readers. It's not just about how McDonalds and drug dealers have in common.

>> No.1625058

Is there any economist I can read that powders my ass for thinking poor people should starve to death while I sit in the air-conditioned room my parents bought? Anything that doesn't take into effect the glaringly obvious advantages I've had over others? Something like Glenn Beck, but with bigger words?

>> No.1625060

>>1625052
>implying Hayek is relevant
I too was once like you.

>> No.1625063

>>1625060
Caldwell, Caplan, Larry White - and hell, even Wales (of Wikipedia) - would disagree.

And to assume Hayek is pop-econ is absurd.

>> No.1625068

>>1625058
The Undercover Economist has a part that pretty much explains how any form of charity to foreign countries other than microfinance is pretty much counterproductive and is more likely to fuel the problems.

>> No.1625077

>>1625063
>Wales (of Wikipedia)
The important economic commentator he is.

The others are all from the same department.

>> No.1625082

>>1625077
>The others are all from the same department.
What does that even mean?

>> No.1625093

>>1625082
Actually, Bruce Caldwell isn't, but the other two are from George Mason University. This doesn't demonstrate relevance, just that a couple of academics in one department circle jerk.

>> No.1625099

>>1625093
>Two people from the same prestigious school agree that Hayek wrote a significant book.
>It's just a stupid circle-jerk.

Really? Really?

>> No.1625113

>>1625099
One significant book that is irrelevant to current economics.

>> No.1625207

>>1625005
>>1625029

Someone clearly has only been following biased media.
Try reading something without such a far-left agenda some time. The crisis was temporary. Our sensationalist national media just tried to make it sound like a massive threat to America's infrastructure when it was hardly even a speck on the map.

>> No.1625408

>>1624713
>>1624809
>>1624839
>>1625005
>>1625029
>>1625207

ITT: people who never read Freakonomics or took Econ 101.

>> No.1625427

>>1625408

>Econ 101

No, I took Econ 203

>> No.1625454

Good books about econ : Blanchard / Samuelson.
Shit tier : everything else ever written on the subject.

/thread

>> No.1625460

>>1625408
>Econ 101
>Hayek
You disappoint me /lit/

>> No.1625471
File: 9 KB, 194x251, 1258959643542.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1625471

>>1625207
Yes...

>> No.1625480

>>1625427
>>1625427

Really? University of Phoenix I presume.

OP here. Once again you guys are fighting over pointless shit. Freakonomics was a decent well-written intro book to 'rogue' economics for the general public.

It discusses the idea that, if morality represents how people would like the world to work, then economics shows how it would actually work.

It explores 'the hidden side of everything' aka explores the idea (cause and effect) of economic effect of human bias, emotions, breeding habits, etc. Everybody thats read the book:
>>1624990
>>1624718
>>1624395
>>1624385
>>1624217
>>1623892
>>1623895

Atleast somewhat the author was discussing (of course 'getting it' could mean anything since all the other wanted was to provoke thought).

The author also addressed several error in this book in Super Freakonomics. He was open to the criticism and responded to it. GO READ IT if you're a business major, it makes for good drunken conversation.

>> No.1625485

>>1625480

If you're going to accuse people of being über libertarian, it's U. Of Chicago you should be aiming for babby.

>> No.1625487
File: 17 KB, 475x375, 1299465900357.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1625487

>>1625480

>Atleast somewhat GETS* the author was discussing.

mfw when I post with so many typo's in /lit/

>> No.1625509

>>1625480

Nope, TAMU

>> No.1625816

>>1625509
>>1625509

I'm glad your parents are in debt so that you could post a two word sentence about it on the internet.

Do you have any actual input?

>> No.1625825

>>1625485
nah not really.

>> No.1625838

>>1625825
hey that reminds me, weren't you the one who asked about bart schultz a couple days ago

my friend said that he's actually kind of a shitty professor, although smart as hell

anyway, don't know nothing about how libertarian the econ department is b/c i'm a dumb political science major, although i think it's changed a lot since the 70s or 80s or whatever. and of course the econ department is the only department that really has that attidue but w/e. (u of chicago undergrad here, just to be clear)

>> No.1625837

Super Freakonomics was good too, minus the Global Warning shit. The terrorist-insurance chapter was great.

Also:

>>1624385

Which guy? The books are authored by two authors, Levitt and Dubner, as shown OP's fucking picture. Good job, dumbass.

>> No.1625849

>>1625838
well, tehy may support some libertarian sounding ideas, but i don't think it's explicitly ideological. it's just neoclassical theory. guys like becker levitt etc do quasiempirical stuff as well.

>> No.1625864

>>1625849
Again, I'm not really competent to talk about the views of the econ faculty here, but people like Hayek and Friedman back in the day were pretty unambiguously libertarian and I would tentatively say that the department has a bit of a slant in that direction. But you're right in that there's a distinction between ideological views and academic economic theories.

>> No.1625872

>>1625838
thing about schultz is that he likes to go off on tangential monologues and don't discuss the material of the course. but it's kind of good that way if you are already familiar with the material.

>> No.1625882

>>1625872
yeah, that's what my friend said, pretty much. also i think he said that schultz had kind of a tendency to dismiss historical thinkers in favor of academic ones, which imo is more a matter of my friend's biases not being schultz's biases, but whatever.

did you go to u of c or something, or do you work in political philosophy, or what

>> No.1625907

>>1625882
yes
and no but i will later.

>> No.1625937

>>1625907
shit, dude, what up u of c bro, i guess. political science major or econ or what? undergrad or grad?

>> No.1625948

>>1625937
econ undergrad doing philosophy grad

>> No.1625951

>>1625948
alright cool, keep it real, gl with finals and all that shit

>> No.1625952

>>1625937
pol sci or some philosophy degree/law intern and grad student maybe

she's that disgusting weaboo dyke weirdo thats like one of the shittest student helpers in your classes.

>> No.1625961

>>1625948
why haven't you read any Baudrillard yet I mean for goodness' sake

>> No.1625963

>>1625952
ahahaha if she's a philosophy grad student i might actually have met her briefly or something or had her as a ta, how bizarre. strange shit, strange shit.

OR did you TA for an Anton Ford class on ethics

>> No.1625976

>>1625963
what's her name?

>> No.1625980

>>1625976
even i was right about who it was, i wouldn't post who it was on here

that would be a dick move

>> No.1625989

>>1625980
enjoy your nofun.

>> No.1626294

>>1624839
Everything you just said was completely wrong. Hope it was a troll. 1/10

>>1625052
>if you don't know Friedman and Hayek
I do, and I know you AND them shouldn't be considered any kind of authority on the subject.

>>1624195
Just read Reinert's preface to this. Brilliant. Read it econfans.

>> No.1626877
File: 53 KB, 480x640, 1218071119a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1626877

bump